infinity0

The author makes an incorrect assessment without considering the appropriate context for China.

The gaping hole in his assessment of "Chinese cultural exports" is the failure to account for China's population and GDP per capita, which currently is only about $17k PPP. This is no position to be exporting culture to the globe from; that would just be a waste of resources. Culture is a result of being rich, not a cause of being rich.

In other words, China is not "culturally-stunted" than any other country with a similar GDP per capita PPP.

Chinese culture is also all in the Chinese language, and China has no strategic reason to make any effort to export it globally into English, a foreign language, where fitting translations would cost even more resources.

If you a "business owner in Hong Kong" then you should be able to see with your own eyes whether Hong Kong is "just another Chinese city" or not, rather than believing the anti-China propaganda that western media regurgitates repetitively and predictably, paying only the most basic level of lip-service to actual events.

You will know then that Apple Daily and Stand News were pushing "freedom of the press" into territory that no western media dares to push in their own countries, including actively calling for foreign military intervention in Hong Kong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfVGludKPWM SCMP - The insufferable hypocrisy of Western governments hell-bent on destroying Julian Assange

"the only solution to bad speech is more free speech"

"the only solution to a bad market is more free market"

"the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"

edit: Hacker News that bastion of "free speech" where all opinions not conforming to the "western liberal" doctrine gets downvote-censored because the readers are too fragile to read different opinions

US media personalities calling for military invasion of Australia

(1) That's not the same thing as calling for military invasion of the US. (2) No government cares about random small articles that only random internet commentators know about to make a "irrelevant counterexample fallacy"; what matters is large-scale media exhibiting a long-term pattern of behaviour and trying to organise large numbers of people (which they failed at in HK; most people stopped going to the protests after a small group started extreme violence).

paranoid presumption

There is no "paranoid presumption", that's literally what the comment I'm replying to was doing.

So, look at reality instead of sitting on your high horse, believing that all defenses of China are "paranoid".

The point was not to make fun of the word choice “harmonious”, but rather to point out [..]

Again, read the comment. You are denying reality. They literally said nothing concrete, only imply negative connotations about the word "harmonious".

My direct experience contradicts your direct experience. I'm Chinese, grew up in China until I was 5, and visit it every now and again.

I have been told over and again (by Chinese people) that China is Han.

You are either selectively reporting, or selectively misremembering things based on your own existing prejudices. I have certainly talked to more Chinese people than you, and nobody has ever said this.

I lived in Berlin for 3.5 years, I found plenty of racism there as well; also in the UK and US where it's more subtle.

I'd assume your Chinese friends are a non-representative sample of Chinese people - likely, you are friends with them because they ran into issues with the government, and hence had similar interests and were attracted to the same events and locations. China has 1.4 billion people, this is bound to happen.

---

Reply to the comments below:

little point in discussing anything China-related in Western internet forums.

Thanks for the advice, I am indeed trying to take it in moderation. I think it's important to try to maintain some level of healthy discourse though, the anti-China propaganda is taking the world down a dark path.

Curious on what you think of what China is doing to the Uyghur people. Do you believe that this is fabricated by all these media outlets?

Yes, they are all citing the same fake reports written by a few people working non-independently, driven ultimately by geopolitical strategy and taking advantage of liberal media's existing prejudices to portray China as "evil". See https://www.qiaocollective.com/en/education/xinjiang - a collection of a large number of sources from many different people, working independently.

You should always compare the data against other countries before jumping to hasty conclusions based on your own prejudices and confirmation biases.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:China_single_age_populati...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA2020dec1.png

The proportional male surplus in China is just over double that of the US. Of course there is something different happening in China, but asserting that this is mostly due to people "killing female infants" is ludicrous. By your logic, there "only" about 2/5 (portionally) of female infants getting killed in the United States as well.

You seem to have a bit of sour grapes that a non-Western country dares to talk positively about their own policies.

You should understand that translations often lose some cultural context, so when you have a prejudice against the English word "harmonious", understand that the Chinese equivalent is used much more freely in everyday speech. "Solidarity" might have been a better translation.

--

Reply to the comment below:

I recall that, in the 2008 Olympics opening ceremony, China celebrated its ethnic minorities by having Han children dress up as them [..]

In a big place like China or the US, there are always going to incidents like this. Furthermore, most news stories will exaggerate the headlines or twist the details, so I am not even sure if this particular incident is as you described. What matters is what the policies are doing for the larger scale of individuals. You can't judge anything about this larger scale by looking at a few incidents, especially when Western media have a vested interest in showing you these news items and ignoring the vast majority of what is going on. (To be fair, the vast majority is quite boring.)

"Ask the people themselves" is used typically in these discussions as a weasel phrase, as if Western liberal democracies are truly "asking the people themselves". You have mass media bombarding the general population all the time with pre-ordained narratives. Nobody votes in elections with an independent analysis. So sure, it depends on what you mean by "ask the people themselves". There's lots of content on social media including from ethnic minorities, people are generally happy with their lives and the amount of freedom they have. Are you going to pick holes in that? Why not pick holes in what's happening with mass media de-jure "independent" de-facto manipulative elections in the West?

China is not a totalitarian regime - you shouldn't believe all the propaganda out there, you should actually go there yourself and you'll find that you can live your life quite normally and happily.

China's identity isn't based on a single ethnic identity - the various restrictions (such as the now-3-child-policy, and permanent immigration between cities) apply to everyone. In fact ethnic minorities generally get preferential treatment - e.g. looser restrictions, affirmative action in various places such as state examinations - because it's recognised that a majority ethnic groups have disproportionate power.

---

Reply to the comment below:

As long as you don't stick out, or criticize the government positively quite frequently.

The ways in which this statement is both true and false in its details, is not particularly different from the West.

In China, there are local protests quite regularly, and local governments respond.

In Hong Kong the protests were incredibly violent and disruptive. You cite the crackdowns by the government, but you don't cite the actions by the protestors and opposition legislators, that also attack innocents and filibuster the legislature for years, much more disruptively and disrespectfully than anything that's happened in the West, including shouting "Fuck China" during legislative oath-taking.

In China, mass organised protest against the national government is not tolerated, but nobody cares if you write some stuff on social media. In the West, in the rare case that actual mass protests ever get too rowdy they are shutdown quite brutally by the police. In China the government stops the situation before it gets to that point. In the West, anyone that sticks out enough to really be a bother, like Julian Assange, gets shut down very brutally too.

In both cases, these types of mass protests don't generally change anything in the political system. And in both cases, most ordinary people actually really just don't care to do these things, because the situation is fine in both China and the West - certainly not like the levels of the revolutions in the 1800s or the wars in the early 1900s. So when you criticise China for not allowing these things, this comes from a position of privilege, you have forgotten what it's like to be hungry. Not being hungry matters more, and China has found an efficient way to do that, so I am happy for them (and "us" as far as I can claim that). Maybe later things will become more relaxed, but it's not a particularly big priority.

brutal suppression they do in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, or Inner Mongolia A-OK?

Most of the "evidence" regarding Xinjiang is fabricated, the Hong Kong stories are exaggerated and one-sided. I'd be against any actual specific cases of brutal suppression that's going on. But that still wouldn't make me "anti-China" in the same way you're not "anti-US" or "anti-West" presumably (I am not either). But that's what Western media portrayals seem to be trying to do - saying that, oh China is doing some bad things, they are evil, they need to be stopped. China is not evil, the world is a complex place.

we all know it was would be like Putin and Medvedev, with Xi still controlling,

Nobody really knows the details of these things high up, it's all conjecture. It's sure convenient that Democrat and Republican policies, compared to the rest of the world, are very similar. How do you know they're not essentially in cahoots and just putting up a show of being "opposites" for the rest of the world?

I'm not the person you spoke to but I can answer this question from my own perspective:

I'm Chinese, grew up in the UK, but I do consider moving back to China as a long-term option that I'll have to think seriously about. The main barrier for me is language & culture, my Chinese skills are awful; for other similar people I'd expect finances too but luckily that's not the case for me.

My parents came to the UK from China to study because they wanted a better life. That was in the 90s where China was admittedly a bit of a shithole, relative to other countries including the UK. My dad went back to China after a few years of working, because he felt he'd do better in a country where he understood the culture better. My mum stayed in the UK because she really really dislikes the Chinese government (for historical reasons). These days they occasionally mention that some of their classmates, that stayed in China, are doing better than them. My mum is quite stubborn though so she doesn't consider moving back as an option.

My cousin visited the UK a few years ago and told me "oh is that all it is" - there's still a cultural impression that western countries are really great, so he thought it'd be way more impressive (he only visited Aberdeen and Manchester, never London, but still London is not that much better), and that's why rich parents still send their kids to school in the west; similarly there's still a cultural impression from western countries that China is a bit of a shithole & authoritarian to boot - but reality has changed a lot in the past 30 years.

The problem today is that you have these nice laws to protect the media, but they themselves are not taking responsibility for their own actions, instead they pander to the prejudices of their readers. They have failed to realise that "free speech" (and other rights) can be exercised in a very negative way, and are undermining their own society for the profit motive, or other political motives.

Regarding Hong Kong, this is a nice and detailed video by some Hong Kong folks including an ex-executive council member https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95VohJu-14w

I do not believe there is any systematic suppression of the Uighurs in Xinjiang (where they are a majority), this is not consistent with Chinese history. As far as I can make out, a very small minority of people are being held for anti-extremism purposes; but generally the Uighur population and culture are thriving in Xinjiang - there are lots of primary sources on this, search "life in xinjiang" on youtube for example.

The media is certainly currently waging a disinformation war against China, blowing the reality up into "genocide", "cultural suppression", "sterilisation", etc - this is all inconsistent with the masses of primary sources, and the cheap propaganda tactics are disgusting and shameful. The few concrete individual reports that we do have, many of them have also been debunked or are obviously inconsistent (e.g. changing stories multiple times).

The camps may not be great compared to regular life in a first-world country, but compared to what the US did in the middle east - killing 100ks-millions of muslims - Xinjiang is probably the best result that a country has achieved in the world (so far) in fighting terrorism, and that's why most muslim-majority countries in fact support China on this issue. Of course, everyone can strive to do better, but that's not how western media is portraying it.

This methodology is biased towards a western perspective on how democracies "must" be run. Taken literally, a democracy is a direct democracy, but no country today is a direct democracy because everybody recognises that it has flaws. So every democratic system tries to make a balance.

Yes, China fixes a 1-party state, but how does that differ from fixing e.g. the judicial branch in the US system which also cannot be elected?

The minorities angle is just weird and shows you have no understanding about China - minorities generally have preferential policies in many aspects of law, e.g. the One-Child policy (now Two-Child policy). That's more than you can say for the US.

China's censorship system is not that sophisticated it's just large scale. The purpose is more to ensure large-scale stability, and they don't care about small-scale private conversations between individuals. The US is currently grappling difficult questions about how to moderate fake news, large corporations are stuck in a difficult place - on one hand they are accused of promoting fake news, on the other hand they are accused of suppressing free speech. So just because China took a strong stance on this, does not mean they are "evil" for doing so.

Again, you need to have some cultural background of China before judging it, rather than judging it based on western preconceptions of how a democracy "must" work like.

Haters gonna hate, I predict a TSLA.

From the slew of negative nitpicky comments here, it seems that Hacker News has been taken over by MBA and not technical types. Yes the nerds you looked down on in high school are doing way better than you, no hard feelings. :)

I agree with the article, but there's also a much simpler answer. To be successful in a world-changing sense, you have to actually care about making a good product. People get MBAs to make personal money, not to make world-changing products. People in these leadership roles got into software because they were interested in making cool products. Nowadays we see some people getting into software primarily to make some personal money - they won't succeed either, not in this world-changing leadership sense.

Whatever scenario you imagine where some $bigtech benefits from using the software, there is some identifiable chain of events from where the software was produced, which can, with some effort, be defined and specified in a general way in the license, in terms of a contract that allows each party in the chain to supply to the next party in the chain.

From that perspective they will never be an independent third party, and therefore you can specify that in a contract. So I don't see a theoretical problem to this, just a practical one of specifying this both precisely enough to be enforceable, and general enough to cover all real cases.

No, "source available" does not generally allow one to distribute and sell your own modifications.

This license would be exactly like today's FOSS, except to force large tech companies to the negotiating table to share revenue.

it doesn't magically hold third-parties responsible

Whatever scenario you imagine where some $bigtech benefits from using the software, there is some identifiable chain of events from where the software was produced, which can, with some effort, be defined and specified in a general way in the license, in terms of a contract that allows each party in the chain to supply to the next party in the chain.

From that perspective they will never be an independent third party, and therefore you can specify that in a contract. So I don't see a theoretical problem to this, just a practical one of specifying this both precisely enough to be enforceable, and general enough to cover all real cases.

That's simply not true. ">X revenue a year" would affect nobody except the largest tech companies. Apart from this, it would strictly benefit existing users, because it means the projects that are properly contributing to the FOSS ecosystem, including importantly its diversity, are getting a fair share of income.

That license is specifically targeted in favour of small businesses for some reason, omitting individuals etc. This potential FOSS license I am talking about would only target against big tech companies.

what about companies which aren't controlled by the larger corp?

Include these companies in the definition?

What do you do?

Generally, there will be situations that are hard to define in a license, as is the revenue sharing part of it - and that's probably why no such license exists yet. The easiest way around this is for a blanket catch-all clause such as "you have 1 year to start negotiations with us, after which this license automatically expires".

If you choose >X correctly, there are only a small number of companies with >X revenue in the world, so you only have to negotiate with that many companies. The idea is not supposed to extract money from small companies or individuals.

pretty sure this can't be accomplished purely within copyright law,

AGPLv3 is enforceable by contract law, same as other EULAs that big tech companies frequently employ.

I wish there was a FOSS license with a clause along the lines of:

- if your company makes >X revenue a year, give us some of it.

Ofc, they (FSF/OSI/DFSG) would have to relax their FOSS definition(s), but with more projects dying in this way hopefully more FOSS organisations will take heed and think about this.

Ofc, the wording of the license has to be precise enough to avoid something like fobbing off the servers to technically be controlled by subsidiaries with 0 revenue.

Ofc, the license would have to figure out how to share revenue with major contributors too.

Contributors already contribute to for-profit open source projects without themselves getting paid, so this license would make the situation strictly better for them.

Laws and definitions have to change with the changing times - the technological economy is different today than it was 20 years ago when tech companies weren't so big or able to throw their weight around. Staying true to the original spirit of FOSS and sharing, means that we have to find ways to support independent FOSS business.

The loudest arguments I hear at forcing the FOSS definition to remain static and blind to revenue, is from big tech companies or wealthy people being paid by big tech companies, because it benefits them. People working for a small FOSS companies understand the realities of competing in today's tech environment, and understand that revenue-sharing far from stifling FOSS, will allow it to flourish properly.

Like laws, definitions change with changing times and circumstances. I am a Debian Developer and very happy to discuss this with other members of the community. Why is it important to you that such a license is not recognised as FOSS?

I wish there was a FOSS license with a clause along the lines of:

- if your company makes >X revenue a year, give us some of it.

Ofc, they (FSF/OSI/DFSG) would have to relax their FOSS definition(s), but with more projects dying in this way hopefully more FOSS organisations will take heed and think about this.

Ofc, the wording of the license has to be precise enough to avoid something like fobbing off the servers to technically be controlled by subsidiaries with 0 revenue.

Ofc, the license would have to figure out how to share revenue with major contributors too.

Contributors already contribute to for-profit open source projects without themselves getting paid, so this license would make the situation strictly better for them.

Sure, the license would have to figure out how to share revenue with major contributors too.

contributors are generally not going to help a for-profit project without themselves getting paid.

Contributors already contribute to for-profit open source projects without themselves getting paid. This license would make the situation strictly better for them.

I wish there was a FOSS license with a clause along the lines of:

- if your company makes >X revenue a year, give us some of it.

Ofc, they (FSF/OSI/DFSG) would have to relax their FOSS definition(s), but with more projects dying in this way hopefully more FOSS organisations will take heed and think about this.

Ofc, the wording of the license has to be precise enough to avoid something like fobbing off the servers to technically be controlled by subsidiaries with 0 revenue.

Why are certain techies obsessed with human-manipulated format? Did you grow up with 1980s computers?

CalDav/CardDAV is widely supported by lots of FOSS tools, and https://packages.debian.org/sid/radicale is very easy to set up as a server. You can host it behind a Tor hidden service if you are worried about hackers. https://github.com/infinity0/droid-hacks/blob/master/pages/s...

Lockdowns are not supposed to stop Covid-19

China

TikTok is controllable by the CCP

It's extremely ironic that the Trump administration (& their supporters) justify their control over US people and companies, preventing them engaging in normal everyday activities with Chinese partners, by saying "[X] is controllable by the CCP". Even whilst there is no evidence of the latter actually happening.

This is not even "pot meet kettle", this is the pot calling a fridge a kettle.

And lots of companies are run by Republicans, what's your point? The sheer amount of head-in-the-sand hypocrisy is incredible.

I checked the sources - they are either inaccessible or don't go into technical detail, and basically just repeat what the sentence on the wikipedia article says. So no, they are not sufficient to actually get to the details of the case. If you are "familiar" with the case as you claimed, surely you can answer one simple question of mine rather than make me tree-search through all these links? Additionally, I am coming from a background of having the media spew these accusations at me all day without actually backing them up, so I am not inclined to want to tree-search through yet another probably-unsubstantive source being thrown in my face.

When your officer mentions "strcmp" on a public blog post, as one of their key examples of "theft", that is extremely telling.

But this is exactly what happened in Huawei's case. [..] providing way better support than Cisco [..] They aren't even ahead of everyone else

Providing better support is not helped by copying technology, but you have to train large numbers of non-technical support staff to be competent at supporting that particular technology. Sure "ahead" depends on your measure, but they are certainly ahead in some key areas such as coverage.

If I steal from you, and use that money to buy a fancy car

Stealing money is different from copying technology. If I steal your money, you no longer have the money. But if I copy your technology, you still have the technology. By the time it takes me to understand your technology, you have had enough time to innovate further upon it. So attributing Huawei's success primarily to this, is extremely biased. Given than there have been much more substantial lawsuits with widely-covered technical evidence (Apple vs Samsung, Google vs Oracle) as well as heavier fines involved, I cannot put any strong belief in these Huawei accusations. Huawei being singled out for something less substantive than what other companies have already done, this stinks of some sort of prejudice, and anyone reasonable can see this. If it's not racism, it is ideological - that a company from a country run on an entirely different set of principles, is doing as good or better than you.

The wikipedia article does not go into that much technical details. Do you have more? Given that the Cisco officer could only talk about strcmp and not something more substantial, I am inclined to believe the story was overblown.

On a separate note, I think the biggest most obvious question that any accuser has to answer is, if Huawei copied so much significant material, why are they ahead of everyone else? It takes time to digest copied technology, it is not a simple case of just copying your competitor's source code then racing ahead of them with a massive sales team and non-technical economic prowess. Given that intellectual property laws were constructed to (supposedly) encourage innovation, even if Huawei did get to where they are now by copying, doesn't that suggest that in fact it's a good thing, they have brought all this extra innovative technology to the world? Or are the monopolists simply going sour grapes because they are no longer at the the forefront?